We are Change: Who are you? April 16, 2008

The Lisbon Treaty referendum campaign took a swerve into the bizarre on Monday night, with the alleged assault on Prionsias de Rossa after a debate in Liberty Hall. While the details are still rather sketchy (and I’ve heard about it from a number of sources, including those who were present) it’s been covered in the Irish Timesand on yesterday afternoon’s Liveline. The discussion on politics.ie is as tasteful and informative as one might expect, although it is depressingly aging to hear de Rossa described as an ‘elderly gentleman’ (all the more so, given that it’s accurate).
It seems that those responsible for the assault come from the strange ‘We Are Change Ireland‘ group, a local branch of a loose organisation based primarily in the United States but with affiliates in the UK, Canada and here. While one shouldn’t read too much into yesterday’s incident at this stage, it may represent the first strand of a more worrying trend.

WAC originate in the crazier extremes of the so-called 9/11 Truth movement. Glancing at the self-produced videos on their website, they come across as a group of rather amateurish Michael Moore wannabes, the kind of people who have never met a conspiracy theory they didn’t like, or accept. Incidentally, the ‘confrontation’ of Gerry Adams is hilarious, as is the encounter between our old comrade Nick Cohen and the We Are Change UK group.

Despite their image as a humourous misfits, it’s very hard to place them on the political spectrum. While some of the jargon they employ about civil liberties and the militarization of the European Union might suggest a leftist bent, they also appear to have some sympathy with a certain kind of right-wing extremism exemplified in the likes of Lyndon LaRouche and, to an extent, Alex Jones. There’s even the pseudo-religious strands (see the interview with arch-crank Michael Tsarion) which resemble the worldview outlined in online films like Zeitgeist and the pronouncements of David Icke.

Indeed, this kind of Ickean mixture of conspiracy theory politics and crazy, mystical cod philosophy does tend to leave a rather nasty taste in the mouth. In Jon Ronson’s chapter on Icke in his great book Them: Adventures with Extremists, he recounts the debate about whether, when Icke talks about giant, blood-drinking lizards ruling the world, he actually means Jews (and the more he protests that he really means lizards, the more this is interpreted by his opponents as really meaning Jews). Amusing as that particular anecdote is, what Ronson’s book is particularly good at is demonstrating the overlap between the outlook of conspiracy theorists and that of genuine neo-fascist organisations.

I am conscious of using the terms ‘conspiracy theory’ and ‘conspiracy theorists’ are perjoratives. This is not to suggest, of course, that political conspiracies don’t exist and that states don’t engage in activities about which they would prefer the public remained ignorant. However, the problem with a certain kind of individual or group – best analysed in Richard Hofstadter’s classic essay ‘The Paranoid Style in American Politics’, a little dated in the age of the internet but well worth reading – is that it substitutes ‘analysis’ (to be generous) for activism. It seems to see the process of uncovering hidden motivations, alliances and activities as progressive in and of itself. It provides no attempt to actually change anything or to improve anyone’s life (except insofar as seeing the hidden hand of the Illuminati everywhere enhances your life). It’s a recipe for political quietism.

Perhaps it would be accurate to see WAC as anti-political, in this sense – in engaging in a simulcarum of activist politics but with no real political goals or objectives other than as a self-perpetuating mechanism for generating new and even more bizarre conspiracy tales.

This alone would make them an interesting phenomenon – a group whose political outlook is entirely generating from the internet and devoid of any substantial content – and certainly worth noting. However, Monday’s events seem a little more sinsiter. The tactics employed both within the meeting and afterwards would be familiar to those who have followed the development of Youth Defence (a genuinely far-right organisation) over the last 15 years. One hopes that WAC are, and will remain, a tiny group of crackpots, rather than the tip of the iceberg of something much worse.

Like this:

Related

“One hopes that WAC are, and will remain, a tiny group of crackpots, rather than the tip of the iceberg of something much worse.”

Amen brother. But do you actually have any evidence that it was the WAC(I)os? As soon as I heard about the incident I assumed that it was WAC(I), but I’m not aware of any proper positive identifications (and I doubt that most people there would recognise them anyway). I have the misfortune of having met a bunch of them in person – they turned up at an anti-war ireland meeting a few months back – hilarity ensued.

My basis for the claim is that a friend of mine who was at the meeting and witnessed the assault was speaking to me about it yesterday morning. When I heard about the cameras, I suggested that it sounded like WAC (although the violence surprised me). They had a look at the website, and identified them based on their previous videos.

This person hadn’t heard of WAC and doesn’t have any particular grudge against them. I don’t have any reason to think they’re not telling the truth, but obviously I wouldn’t suggest that people should take my word as gospel. That’s all the evidence I have, and people are perfectly entitled to treat it with scepticism (I would).

The above gives a flavour of the nutters that abound on the fringes.
I cannot remember where I saw the link. I remember a discussion once about agent provacateurs where I said that there were plenty of nuts/idiots and eejits who would od the work for free.
Mind you it allows those who want to make an amalgam of all the anti Lisbon forces. And we though we had enough trouble distinguishing ourselves from Libertas.
At least one far left group regarded its main rival as a KGB conspiracy set up to fool and distract the workers fropm the true faith (religious words are the only ones which can describe this approach as it is rationale free)

“My basis for the claim is that a friend of mine who was at the meeting and witnessed the assault was speaking to me about it yesterday morning. When I heard about the cameras, I suggested that it sounded like WAC (although the violence surprised me). They had a look at the website, and identified them based on their previous videos.”

Smiffy, that’s all I wanted to hear – that there had been an eyewitness identification. As I say, from the moment I heard, I assumed it was them – based on the fact that they are the only people who I could imagine possibly getting excited enough to get into a confrontation with De Rossa over Lisbon. They have denounced him in the past as a traitor and they believe that the Lisbon Treaty is part of a vast conspiracy by the new world order to end all nations.

The overlap between conspiracy theory and fascism is nothing new. See Warrant for Genocide by Norman Cohn, detailing how Hitler used the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in his destruction of the 6 million.
PublicEye.org is a good source on kooks of all kinds.http://www.publiceye.org/index.html

The WRP otherwise the Healyites. Though I think in practice the warped messiah complex of some groups feed into a deranged view of the world. LaRouch was in a far left party once.
There is one American sect, The RCP who regard their leader as the anointed new Lenin and think that a campaign to protect him is the single most important issue. (Yeah, I know most/nearly everyone has not heard of him. Then this is also evidence of a plot)
An Irish group had a thing about the Trilateral commission.
I personally think that Imperialism is essentially anarchic with competing forces etc. Not anarchy as exposed by Chekov abd co but anarchic as opposed to a single organising force manipulating everything.

“but anarchic as opposed to a single organising force manipulating everything.”

Chaotic is a better term I think (anarchic would imply to me a lack of guided forces, chaotic implies lots of guided forces interacting in very complex ways). I totally agree with your point, however, the fundamental error of the conspiranoid is to assume that stuff happens according to somebody’s grand plan, rather than being a complex result of all sorts of different forces at play.

Interesting to see that the “We Are Change” website is
promoting the controversial 9/11 documentary
“Loose Change”. More links to the conspiratorial
theory movement.

Odd to see them bigging up both Anthony Coughlan
and Kathy Sinnott as well.
And someone called Michael Tsarion discusses”…. Irish Origins of Civilization, Symbolism of the Irish Flag, St. Patrick, New World Order, 9/11, psychology of the Elite, solutions to their problems…” etc.

I’m imagining him living in an attic with photos pinned to the
wall connected with string.

Brian – WAC in the UK are involved in 7/7 denialism as well. When I googled them this afternoon & followed a couple of links, I ended up on this page citing as evidence the fact that the same newsreader who presented the BBC news special on the bombings had previously presented the Panorama programme on a hypothetical London terrorist attack. There were screenshots and everything. I suppose the logic is “it was faked before, so why should we believe it’s real now?” Deeply odd.

Incidentally, I might add that while not a political fan of de Rossa I think it’s pretty grim for something to happen which would wind up with him on the ground with someone allegedly sitting upon him. And the glee with which some on t’internet and P.ie in particular are detailing this is close to vile, particular for the armchair so and so’s who never engaged him once politically on any issue in real life which is the level all such contests should be on.

Paying We Are Change any kind of attention whatsoever just seems a phenomenal waste of time. The UK wing’s recent video which depected them hollering inanely through a megaphone outside the BBC perfectly encapsulated how ludicrously impotent they are.

There’s something creepily authoritarian about the whole
conspiratorial tone of We Are Change.

Has anyone ever read “On the Edge: Political Cults Right and Left” by Dennis Tourish and Tim Wohlforth? It has some interesting
stuff on groups like Lyndon LaRouche Movement, Gerry Healy’s
Workers Revolutionary Party and Fred Newman’s New Alliance Party.
The WAC group seem to have characteristics of both religious
and political cults.

Incidentally, feckin’ Holst’s The Planets is used on the YouTube piece on the Irish WAC site, but because it goes all bucolic a few bars in they have to fade out, and then start again… and then again… and then again…

The WAC people who are very annoying, but the personel who make up the organisation here are irriating rich kids, follow PdR down the street shouting in a loudhailer “traitor” with another fool with a camcorder stuck to his face and in PdRs face shouting questions about PdRs odd vote in the Euro Parl recently.

De Rossa, a man not known for his calm temperment and ability to detach the personal from the politics, looses the rag and goes for the camera. (In my view correctly)

And you can find more on LaRouche in Wohlforth’s The Prophet’s Children, including a striking account of LaRouche’s encounter with Gerry Healy. Kind of a leftist Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man.

The guy was IIRC an early (founding?) member of the Spartacists, before deciding that he didn’t have to settle for membership of Jim Robertson’s cult when he could have a perfectly good cult of his own…

…seems to indeed… but we can see that the WAC M.O. consists of asking the question ad nauseam (hmmm… somewhat reminiscent of Scientology). Incidentally, I find their fetish about CCTV a bit troubling, on many different levels…

“Well the video does show that Labours statements on him being attacked are untrue.”

It doesn’t actually. The title claim that it shows him grabbing a camera and initiating the scuffle, the video doesn’t show that at all. It provides absolutely no clue as to what actually kicked it off, nor does it show what happened once he had fallen over, nor how or why he fell over, nor why he suddenly seemed to move quickly in the opposite direction to which he had been coming from.

One of the amazing things I learned when I used to do a lot of video editing is that people’s perceptions are hugely manipulable. You can use the most glarlingly obvious tricks to create perceptions which are wholly manufactured. In this case, the perception that the video shows De Rossa initiating the scuffle is based on the titling – the footage doesn’t actually contain anything which supports it.

Chekov’s right. There’s obviously more going on than De Rossa simply being ‘asked questions’. If he did indeed to go grab the other camera, why is the footage from that camera not shown (as surely it would provide a clearer image of the incident), and why does the video cut off at that point?

Without getting into details, for obvious reasons, the footage shown absolutely supports the version of the events as relayed to me, which is very different to the claims WAC are making.

It’s strange. Ok. They’re amateurish and cringeful – as JG says, the Adams confrontation is painfully embarrassing, and their ideas are just plain wacky – but, I dunno, at least they are making the effort. (Does that make sense?) I mean, amateurish, embarrassing, sometimes plain wacky: a bit like bloggers, no?
Judging by their other attempts I’m hoping the de rossa incident is a bit of a once-off. Maybe they knew de rossa’s temperament (not the kind of guy to avoid a confrontation), then again, maybe they didn’t.

Michael Tsarion, however, is a bit nutty alright. Claims that world civilisation originates in Ireland and Britain – that somehow we taught the Mesopotamians how to build and organise cities (despite the complete lack of archaeological evidence for same here), and that the original inhabitants of these islands should be called by their proper names: Aryans. Oh. And humanity is a hybrid race of humanoids and aliens. Which is nice.

As soon as I heard this I thought of the ‘we are change group’. Having seen their videos this seems to be their MO.
In terms of the ideology here, I posted about the interplay, or intersection, between the truthers and neo-fascist inclinations on a Ron Paul thread on p.ie. Some of the online-videos are extremely racist and anti-semitic (Jew and Moslem).
What is troubling is how adept they are online – as can be seen by Ron Paul’s relative success- and how they can cover certain parts of their platform (such as the far-right economics, the Aryan-lovin etc) roping in what you’d think would normally be pretty intelligent people.

(As an aside, the strange politics of the right-libertarian(ish)/911-truther type, is superbly characterised by the fictional blogger “Mark Dark” in Ken Macleod’s thriller/sci-fi novel “The Execution Channel”. Good for fans of “the bizarre conspiracy tales” or watchers of the spinners of similar…)

[…] decided to get all gutterpress about it with the way they presented this to their readership. The Cedars have gone and actually researched who these people are. That’s good blogging but then it is the Cedars, the best political and […]

Hi Cedar,
First of all can I say it’s pleasant to read a thoughtful and civilised criticism of We Are Change, which is a change to the usual foam-mouthed-rants we are used to.

So, Who Are Change? Good question.

I am writing as a representative of We Are Change UK, the separate international groups are based around a philosophy and are not linked or a part of the same organisation. While I’m sure our sentiments are mirrored by our international counterparts, I can only vouch and speak for members of our group, but hope you find our explanation useful.

First and foremost I need to register that I find it dismaying that you have summed up that our principle drive is to “generate new and even more bizarre conspiracy tales”, and certainly do not understand your referencing of an “Illuminati”. The members of We Are Change UK formed specifically through a tiring with the esoteric side of the 9/11 Truth Movement. We wanted the call for a new investigation into 9/11 to be placed in the context of real world issues – such as illegal wars, civil liberties erosion, money reform, the EU and so on. This commitment to issues which were real and affected everyone, and a loss of patience with an unneeded focus on “Illuminati”/”Free Mason”/”Zionist”/”Alien”/”Lizard” plots and so on, is instrumental to the dynamic of our group. While I cannot speak for other We Are Change groups in other countries, and could be wrong, I have never seen any We Are Change group endorse such far out theories and would be surprised to find they were. I find it worrying that you have surmised that we “originate in the crazier extremes of the so-called 9/11 Truth movement” when the intention of We Are Change being formed was to break away from those extremes.

So why the perception of extremism, and more importantly (to me particularly, as someone of left wing persuasions) why the perception (or the rumour) that we are a right wing group? This has been spread around on Indymedia and other sites, often by fraudulent posters claiming to be members of We Are Change UK (Indymedia are aware of this and hide the offending posts – but they still have some effect I’m sure) – but I struggle to see where the perception comes from.

Could it be in our opposition to the EU as proposed by the Lisbon Treaty? The issue of the EU has been so perfectly framed by the propagandists – the myth now presides that to say you are against the Treaty means you are no doubt a xenophobe, a nationalist, certainly a right winger. For this reason many left-wing people will say “I’m pro-EU” when they mean “I’m not a bigot” and actually have no idea what the Treaty proposes. I know this because this was me, and this was several other members of We Are Change UK who were steeped in a left wing background, until we learnt the facts. Our opposition to the EU, as the Lisbon Treaty Describes it (please note we are not advocating withdrawal) is that it is an affront to democracy and it is essentially laying the ground work for a Corporatocracy – it is a decidedly pro-big business project where democratic power of people is reduced to insignificance.

In the American cartoon “Family Guy” they made a joke where Peter Griffin, the buffoonish main character, is tasked with convincing congress to support the war. Having agreed there is no reason to invade Iraq Peter tells congress is they don’t want to go to war they are gay and wins over the crowd. A similar sort of thing seems to have happened with the EU. “Yes it is true that there is no need to form a Corporate Super State and essentially destroy democracy in order to have increased cooperation, unity and trading between European nations, but what you are forgetting is that you don’t vote for the EU, you are a nationalist and a bigot”. And it worked.

Let me express this clearly, anyone of true left wing ideals should be against the EU the Lisbon Treaty is proposing. If reading this, deep down you admit to yourself that you really don’t know what the Lisbon Treaty is proposing, the We Are Change Ireland video “End of Nations” is essential viewing. We Are Change UK recently interviewed Tony Benn – a staunch critic of the Treaty – is this most celebrated leftist now a “right winger”? Please think outside the box the propagandists have made for you, and decorated so enticingly. We do not live in a comic book. Anytime the media or government tries to convince you of a black and white-ism, alarm bells should ring.

Could the charge of extremism come from the We Are Change UK style of confrontation? Well I can understand there are some videos out there that seem a little aggressive, but that is never the intention from the outset. When you have a trained liar who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis in front of you acting with arrogance and indifference and refusing to answer your very rational question, it can be hard to hold your temper. To be sure, there are moments in some of these videos that our members regret and wish we had held better composure, but to edit them creatively would be directly against our ethical code. The rough must come with the smooth, we are human beings after all and don’t expect to be taken as anything else.

So back to the question – Who Are Change?

We Are Change UK believe 9/11 needs re-investigation, but view the event as a catalyst of a sea change in foreign and domestic policy which is having disastrous and will have fatal consequences for freedom and democracy.

We Are Change UK attack the symptoms and the cause. Illegal wars, the erosion of civil liberties, the growth of CCTV, the implementation of ID Cards and the increasing police powers in our nation are of equal importance to us as is the event of 9/11 itself.

We view the bigger picture of the corrupt global money system and the move towards centralised corporate favouring super states such as the EU as roots of a myriad of suffering and need to be exposed and tackled.

We Are Change UK are a diverse group of activists united in a belief that we cannot in all good conscience stand by and watch the world as it careens off the rails. We will do what we can to expose lies, bring corrupt leaders to account and educate the public. We have no delusions of grandeur; we are not proposing that our small group will solve the problems of the world. But we will not explain to our grandchildren that we stood by and did nothing, we will not join the international shrug of “what can I do?” We can all do something, the world is made up of individuals and we all have a responsibility to use every fibre of energy in us to make the change we want to see. As Ghandi put it “Be the change you wish to see in the world”. We Are Change are those responding to his clarion call.

Please think outside the box the propagandists have made for you, and decorated so enticingly. We do not live in a comic book. Anytime the media or government tries to convince you of a black and white-ism, alarm bells should ring.

Oh, they do. Unfortunately I can’t think of anything more black-and-white than this style of thinking. No, I don’t believe we do live in a comic book – and that means I don’t believe politicians, civil servants and media professionals can be written off as ‘propagandists’ and ‘trained liars’. I certainly wonder what kind of rational discussion you can hope to have with someone you’re approaching with those preconceptions.

I’m not really going to get into this, because I didn’t write the original post, other than to say thanks for commenting stefan78 but obviously I’m guessing most of us here would take a different view of such matters, as expressed by Phil…

Don’t really want to get into a conversation here, just wanted to make a statement – but I obviously need to clarify.

“Unfortunately I can’t think of anything more black-and-white than this style of thinking.”

The black and white comment referred to the perception that if you are against the Lisbon Treaty, you must be a nationalist, xenophobe or bigot of some kind. It’s been a very successful propaganda operation that most leftists who have no idea whatsoever the treaty actually proposes and who it benefits (corporations) say they are for it, when they really mean “I’m not a nationalist xenophobe!”.

“No, I don’t believe we do live in a comic book – and that means I don’t believe politicians, civil servants and media professionals can be written off as ‘propagandists’ and ‘trained liars’. I certainly wonder what kind of rational discussion you can hope to have with someone you’re approaching with those preconceptions.”

I’m not saying that of all politicians, civil servants and media proffessionals, perhaps it’s my fault for not making myself clear enough in my first post, as it clearly isn’t the case. Anyone who listened to our radio show will know that there are many public figures we have held very polite and respectful interviews with.

I was explaining specifically the few times one of our members have lost their temper with a subject – such as Sir Richard Dearlove – who is by proxy responsible for over 60,000 deaths and was lying through his teeth at the time. Anyone who was instrumental in starting the war is a mass murderer and a war criminal. That’s not a matter of opinion – the law is very clear – they are criminals and their crime was played out in the public record so there is no dispuit over their guilt.

I wasn’t there personally but I can understand perfectly why some of the guys lost their temper. Regardless, the crew who were do regret it – you can see in the video that they started by asking him several very sensible questions.

‘We Are Change UK are a diverse group of activists united in a belief that we cannot in all good conscience stand by and watch the world as it careens off the rails. We will do what we can to expose lies, bring corrupt leaders to account and educate the public. We have no delusions of grandeur; we are not proposing that our small group will solve the problems of the world. But we will not explain to our grandchildren that we stood by and did nothing, we will not join the international shrug of “what can I do?” We can all do something, the world is made up of individuals and we all have a responsibility to use every fibre of energy in us to make the change we want to see. As Ghandi put it “Be the change you wish to see in the world”. We Are Change are those responding to his clarion call.

In Truth, Peace and always Love,’

Hey, stefan78, perhaps you’d like to tell me what assaulting an 18-year old girl in a wheelchair has to do with such noble sentiments. After all, that’s what one of your WAC comrades did recently in New York:

“But at least you don’t have to deal with Ron Paul’s minions over there in the U.K.”

Oh dear… the Cedar Lounge is based in that part of Ireland which hasn’t had anything to do with the UK since 1922. There was a brief dalliance with that entity from about 1801, but we don’t like to talk about it.

“Oh dear… the Cedar Lounge is based in that part of Ireland which hasn’t had anything to do with the UK since 1922. There was a brief dalliance with that entity from about 1801, but we don’t like to talk about it.”